Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intersection of Generative AI and Copyright Law

By Karl Zielaznicki, Victoria D. Summerfield and Eliza Cen
August 01, 2023

With the advent of readily accessible artificial intelligence (AI) and the breakthrough of generative AI (GAI) programs such as ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion and Midjourney, GAI is now a staple in all facets of business. GAI programs can generate new texts, images, and content (outputs) based on textual prompts by a user (inputs). Whether prompted to write a corporate slogan, create music, generate works of art and advertisements, or summarize a book — GAI can do it all. However, its increasing popularity means that users of GAI programs face substantial intellectual property risks — particularly when businesses use GAI for marketing and other public-facing purposes.

GAI has taken the world by storm. In 2023 alone, GAI has been used to generate musical works using the voices of famous musicians such as Drake, The Weeknd, Rihanna, Ye (formerly Kanye West), and Jay-Z — to name a few. These AI-generated musical works were short-lived, however, as they were quickly removed from streaming services after record label companies threatened legal action. GAI has also been used to generate new works of art. For example, the winner of the 2023 Sony World Photography Awards used GAI to create their winning work; however, the award was later forfeited when it was found that the artist used GAI to create it. GAI programs also have been used to write substantive and pictographic books — such as the more than 200 e-books on online bookstores that list ChatGPT as an author or co-author. Users galore also produce succinct or lengthy summaries of existing authored works with GAI. This may seem beneficial, however, a recently filed copyright infringement lawsuit, Silverman et al. v. Open AI Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03416 (District Court, N.D. California, July 7, 2023), claims that to produce books and summarize others, the GAI platform must "ingest" copyrighted books to learn what they are about and to account for their writing style — something the program allegedly did to plaintiff's copyrighted work, without her permission.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.